The Atomic Bomb: Ordinary Morals Versus Wartime Morals The War in Germany was over, and fighting continued only throughout the Pacific Islands, where American troops were “island hopping” frenziedly in an effort to finally vanquish the Japanese. Japanese tactics were simple; they did not cease fighting until they won, and their Kamikazes, the original suicide bombers, sunk hundreds of American ships. The United States, tired of incessant violence, issued the Potsdam Declaration, which outlined the consequences that the Japan faced should they refuse to surrender, which was ignored. Meanwhile, just months after the European theater of the war ended, the infamous atomic weapons had been completed and were ready for use. So, in August of 1945, the United States dropped two atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Total destruction ensued, and hundreds of thousands of lives were lost, though Japan did ultimately surrender. A thorough analysis of multiple historical viewpoints indicates a valid point of contention as to whether the United States was justified in dropping both bombs, one bomb, or whether the act was entirely unnecessary and overly aggressive. David Woods, in his essay entitled “Dropping Atomic Bombs on Japan May Have Saved Lives,” is an ardent supporter of dropping the bombs, like over fifty percent of Americans. He states that we cannot know that the bombing was unnecessary since we can only guess as to what the outcome would have been otherwise. This is a valid point, as human logic is applied. In addition, Wood seems to believe that there is a large misconception as to the number of people that died during the atomic bombings, stating that:

What I also know is that World War II was a total war, and that the indiscriminate bombing of civilian populations was commonplace. Single raids using conventional weapons on Hamburg